3
Post-Jakobsonian Features (cont.) The features were more dependent on the articulatory configuration, so more differentiated features were required (e.g. not rounded, pharyngealised and retroflex as [flat]) All phonological features were strictly binary. (the distinction between underlying and surface forms allowed „phonetic features“ to take on continuous values) Focus very much on inherent (segmental) features. Only stress was theoretically developed to any degree.

4
SPE Inherent Features 1 Features defined along four dimensions (compared to the three by JFH): - Major class features. - Cavity features. - Manner features. - Source features Apart from the first dimension, these reflect the articulatory, production perspective rather than the acoustic/perceptual. (functional definition) (articulatory definition)

7
Unordered vs. ordered features The features (as presented so far) are subclassified according to function - major class features - or production properties - cavity, manner and source features. But there are no dependencies between the features. Nick Clements (1985) presented a grouping of features which took the link between features and their articulators into account: This “ordered” view of features is known as “Feature Geometry ” Some features are regarded as independent of a particular articulator (e.g. consonantal, sonorant, approximant) Other features are dependent on a specific area of the production system (e.g. voiced, vs. nasal) Other features are clearly dependent on a specific articulator (e.g. round, high, ATR)

17
Exercise (written) 1.Specify a SPE and a JFH matrix for the word “Standlicht” and compare. Make notes of any problems, queries or objections you have! 2. Draw a series of feature-geometry trees for the same word. (use the Clements arrangement) 3.Does the feature-geometry scheme by Halle 1992 contain any theoretical or practical differences when compared to Clements/Spencer?